DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Deshawn Watson News/Issues

Our window to win is open as long as the franchise exists and is playing games and we are still alive to see it.

Oh golly gee, this case is so mysterious. Why did a rich, powerful, and famous football player with access to professional trainers and masseuses seek out over 40 vulnerable young women for off premises massages??? I’m so confused what happened here. Oh I know, he was trying to support small business entrepreneurs. What a great dude!

Oh and don’t worry, that paragon of truth and honesty, good old Jimmy, did a full investigation and found all charges to be meritless.

Let’s go to a browns game!!

Just be sure to wash the slime off afterwards.

NFL’s betting partners surely would like to have a Deshaun Watson decision, too

Posted by Mike Florio on May 17, 2022, 7:25 PM EDT
link

Beyond the Browns, their opponents, and their fans, there’s another key constituency that would like to know whether quarterback Deshaun Watson will miss any, some, or all of the games to be played in 2022.

The NFL’s seven sports betting partners.

They want to take bets. They want to make money from taking bets. With Watson’s status unknown, key Browns bets aren’t on the board. For example, PointsBet still doesn’t offer an over/under win total for Cleveland, or a bet on whether the Browns make the playoffs, or fail to do so.

For some reason, however, bets can be placed on the Browns to win the AFC North, where they are co-favorites with the Ravens at +200.

Whether it’s PointsBet or FanDuel or DraftKings or any of the other four NFL sports betting partners, the sooner Watson’s status is know, the sooner these various sports books can start making money from bets placed for, or against, the Browns.

OK....coming in late on a couple of these points...but here goes.

1) The number of accusations against Watson has ZERO bearing on whether he is considered a "repeat offender". It is the same situation with the serial killer example. Until the person has been convicted, lost a civil suit, been suspended for the same crime/accusation...Until they have endured "official" repercussions from the accusations, they cannot be considered as a "repeat offender" Until a "new" accusation/investigation/trial begins. PERIOD. There is no "two ways" to interpret it.

2) Concerning the Goodell's involvement. As I read it. IF the investigation sees grounds and suggests a suspension. Goodell as the Commissioner can change that suspension to whatever he wants...including no suspension. He can raise or lower as he sees fit. However...if the investigation recommends no suspension...Goodell can't do a thing about it. There will be no suspension...

3) Just as the accusations against Watson are disturbing, so too are the accusations against Friel. And in both cases neither has been convicted, nor criminally charged in their accusations. And both should be treated as such...

I do think the inclusion of Friel increases the chance of a suspension. But that is an opinion and not a fact.

j/c:

I understand why people want closure. We, the fans want closure because we want to know where our team stands. Surely, the Browns and Watson feel the same way. The NFL probably wants to put this yucky mess behind them as soon as possible. The gambling community wants the opportunity to make more money. However, if fairness and accuracy are the goals, it would be wise to wait until all the cases have been heard and all the facts that come w/them have been considered in determining a fair and accurate decision. I don't know if fairness and accuracy are important to the decision makers, but that's another discussion.

Yeah, as ridiculous as the serial killer example is (still NOT a repeat offender if they find and charge him after the 20th murder), it's true because people are innocent until proven guilty. If he hadn't previously been proven guilty, then I don't think he's eligible for repeat offender status. That said, I don't know what happens after that first guilty verdict. At the time of the subsequent murders, the serial killer still hadn't been found guilty and wouldn't be a repeat offender (right?).

That said, we're talking about the NFL personal conduct policy... which is arguably defined more by its "we can do pretty much whatever we feel like" clause than anything else.

And that is what it is. The conduct policy is there for a number of reasons, but mostly to deal with people who embarrassed the league or tarnished the shield. They aren't there as law enforcement or part of the justice system.

"Sorry about you feeling uncomfortable," Watson texted. “Never were the intentions. Lmk if you want to work in the future. My apologies.”

Asked why he sent an apology, Watson testified: “Yes, because she was teary-eyed. And I was trying to figure out what was going on. So, I assumed that she was uncomfortable in whatever reason. And we talked about working in the future. And so, I said, `We can work in the future. Just let me know.’ And then I sent my apologies as whatever reason she was teary-eyed for.”

"sent my apologies as whatever reason she was teary-eyed for"

I am pretty sure this testimony came from the same person...

“During the massage, Watson began to aggressively dictate the massage and complain that she was not doing what he wanted. The plaintiff began to think that Watson only wanted sex.

Watson repeatedly directed her towards his penis. She alleges that he purposely exposed the tip of his now fully erect penis from under the towel. He began moving himself to expose himself more, and eventually turned to touch her hand with his penis.

The plaintiff immediately ended the massage and started to cry. After telling him to leave, Watson said "I know you have a career and a reputation, and I know you would hate for someone to mess with yours, just like I don't want anyone messing with mine."

Later, Watson reached out to her via text message to apologize. She did not respond.”

J/C

I’m figuring this case will not be resolved for a while and the NFL will probably wait. Leaks like the ones from yesterday were bound to happen. I can’t see the NFL handing out less than 8 games, but that’s just a guess

You may be right that it creates a law suit but that has been tried before. The problem comes with the fact that the players are contractually obligated to accept final decisions by the NFL. They have a right to appeal the suspension with the NFL but have fallen short in law suits because they agreed to abide by the NFL's decisions on such matters in their union contracts.

The suit against the NFL had already been lost and the players union was lost here....

Philadelphia Eagles’s Lane Johnson Loses Suit Against Union

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily...ss-lane-johnson-loses-suit-against-union

Here is La'el Collins suing over a drug suspension...

Cowboys’ Collins Loses Drug Case Appeal Despite Judge’s NFL Rebuke

https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2021/lael-collins-drug-suspension-nfl-1234644108/

I'm not saying it would be impossible for DW to fight it in court but his odds certainly do not appear to be good in terms of winning.

Didn't Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson and Tom Brady have similar lawsuits resulting in reinstatement and judges overturning their suspensions? I'm pretty sure all three did.

This is a unique case because a court of law has already declared lack of evidence for indictment. It's also a situation where the league is (maybe) choosing to impose punishment before more evidence comes forth in civil cases. They obviously don't need to wait, and they obviously have a right to hold their own standards of conduct.

However, they also seem to be in a no win situation through no fault of their own. Hold to a certain benchmark standard of punishment (which would be six games, according to their code of conduct policy) and everyone will scream because of the absurd amount of "occurrences". Excess punishment will have people screaming that he didn't even "commit a crime". Doing it too soon will put egg on their face if they are too lenient in lieu of possible forthcoming evidence... Waiting too long (in the eyes of many) says that they don't care.

It will be interesting to see how this whole thing plays out.

Let me give you a possible scenario here. Let's say for the sake of argument that the NFL finds validity in 12 of the 22 allegations. So that is 12 separate incidents in violation of the same policy. Is it your contention they would give him only a half game suspension for each infraction? Even in your post you said "violations" not "violation". It was also posted how it is written in NFL policy how they can easily get around that by other things written within their policies.

Now I understand how you felt the need to point out the most ridiculous case scenario to try to make a point that has never been stated. What I've suggested they MIGHT do is make his suspension longer because it is multiple incidents. Not some crazy 132-176 games.

The NFL is a business. A business that image is everything. They call that "protecting the shield". What I don't believe they will do, if they find validity in multiple allegations, is treat it as if it was only a single infraction. That would not be a good look for them and when image is everything, I don't believe most people looking at it from a realistic way believe that either.

And who are those people? Are you trying to twist what people consider possible scenarios and outcomes into "campaigning" for that outcome to happen? And before you and others hop on the sig train, my belief is watson is guilty of at least some of these allegations. To believe otherwise would take me entertaining some conspiracy theory. What conclusion or punishment the NFL comes up with is of no real concern to me or has it been posted as such. So again, who are these posters?

The problem with your scenario is they use the same person for all NFL allegations for all 32 teams.

Isn't it odd that we heard she was willing to work with watson again. Some even said watson's lawyer had proof of that. watson is still saying that. But when we look at the evidence, the only thing that leads in that direction is a text watson sent after the incident. Were they talking about appointments in the future before the alleged incident happened? Because it's quite clear that after the incident she refused to have further comminications with her. Things that make you go hmmmm....

Actually I agree with you. In the end I think the NFL will do what they feel is the best case scenario to make them look good. I would prefer that they wait until the process is concluded and all of the evidence is in. But as you so aptly pointed out that would drag the process out for a very long time which wouldn't be a good look either.

In the end they may feel that acting quickly is in their best interest. As if you suggested it gets appealed they can say they did their best and it was overturned in court. It makes them look like the good guys in taking such topics seriously even though they may feel relatively certain it won't stand up to scrutiny in court. I have no idea at this point but it does make sense to look at the possible scenarios.

You, for one. And how did you miss this gem?



There are multiple posts throughout these threads that are completely one-sided. And none of them are pro-Watson posters.

j/c:

Well there goes any worry of him being suspended at least!

Exactly!

Now I can start betting on the Browns props.

Great way to go broke. Enjoy!

Let me be a devil's advocate here. Let's say that starting next April, all of the cases start going to court. Between April and July, Watson loses 22 civil case's but the NFL had already suspended him for 6 games in 2022. What's the NFL, Cleveland Browns, and for that fact Watson to tell the fans and the American public then? That he's already served his suspension? If a player is suspended for 6 games for a single domestic dispute case, you can bet that the NFL is going to look at 22 civil case losses a heck of a lot differently as will the public. If Watson had stayed with Houston, my guess is that the vast majority of his supporters here would be crying foul if he was given a 6-game suspension before the 22 cases were heard.

I don't believe the NFL wants to take that chance. IMHO, I expect Watson to get an indefinite suspension until the civil cases are heard. Much like the MLB, allowing Watson to play with 22 cases pending is just not a good look for the league and I suspect that is something the league does not want to have to address on a weekly basis or the fallout that will occur if he plays and then losses the civil cases. The purpose of the NFL action is not to determine guilt or innocence but to protect the image of the league. I don't believe the league wants to tell 51% or more of the population that Watson playing is more important to the NFL than the treatment of women. That is not the image they want to portray.

I get it, Watson is a Cleveland Brown and the anointed savior of the franchise. I want the Browns to win a Super Bowl too. However, when I take off my Browns hat, I don't want a guy to get off easy or be playing when 22 women have accused him of such mistreatment. IMHO, clean up your mess and then come play for the Browns.

Where have I said that?


I didn't miss it. You missed the context which I put in bold for you in order to help you out.


But that's nothing close to the accusation you stated. Here's what you stated....


Even in the post you quoted as your example it plainly stated that should happen IF Watson were found guilty in civil court. In my comments on the matter it is based on IF the NFL finds validity in the lawsuits. Nothing about that is "overlooking other things". I think you just get a little worked up sometimes and perceive things that simply are not there. It happens.

j/c...

Pretty sure the over/under on suspension is still 4.5 games. It's weighted though, at -140.

To be fair your original post made it sound like you expected it to be 22 (or 12 in your follow up) separate violations of policy. With 6-8 games as the "standard" for each violation that would amount to ending his career and being suspended for 11 seasons (though I might have divided by 16 not 17 there out of habit).

if he is found to have violated the policy I think it will be handled as a single violation. Any more strikes of retribution and not discipline. If they found cause in all 22 cases though I could see a little fatter of a sentence, but surely not more than a season.

No, you took what I originally said out of context. I was replying to another post that you chose to ignore.

It's fine. I knew you would respond the way you did. You have an innate ability to change things around and never admit to being wrong. Frankly, I am tired of it and it's best to just allow you to keep on w/your one-sided ridiculing on this subject of Baker and Watson w/out responding to you. But, you keep getting in those digs, because perception is reality in this forum.

I understand that when you can't defend your position the best thing to do is shift the blame to someone else. It's a specialty of yours.


This is a direct quote that has in no way been manipulated or "changed around".



As per usual you try and change the topic. Watson's issues have nothing to do with Baker. They are totally separate issues. I have said over and over again that watson is one of the top QB's in the league and he is a big upgrade "on the field" over baker. People that actually bother to read and admit what has actually been posted understand that. But I can understand why you would wish to try and make it appear to be the same thing. Speaking of having "an innate ability to change things around".

So steve, if you get your wish and Watson is suspended indefinitely and is unavailable this upcoming year, do you think that Baker Mayfield will be the starting qb for the Browns this year?

I've tried to keep an open mind about Watson's situation concerning the upcoming civil cases, but it is going to be difficult for me.

Some seem to be insinuating that all these massage therapists are lying about Watson's alleged conduct...yet when Watson was placed under oath in a deposition last week he appears to confirm Ashley Solisa's account of what happened when she attempted to give Watson a legitimate massage. Ashley Solisa was the first to go public with allegation of sexual misconduct against Watson.

Just my take on the information outlined in this USA Today article.

Browns QB Deshaun Watson testified woman cried at end of massage, according to transcript

USA TODAY
Brent Schrotenboer
May 17, 2022
link


Cleveland Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson admitted during a pretrial deposition last week that one of his disputed encounters with a massage therapist ended with the woman crying, followed by an apology sent to her by text message from Watson, according to the woman’s attorney.

This verifies a portion of the women’s claims against him and raises the question of what caused to her cry during their encounter. In his deposition, Watson said he didn’t know, according to the attorney, Tony Buzbee. The woman is suing Watson for civil assault and claims in her lawsuit that Watson purposely touched her with his penis during the massage, causing her to feel scared and cry.

Watson left and sent her a text message apologizing afterward: “Sorry about you feeling uncomfortable,” he wrote, according to a screenshot of it previously posted by her lawyers. “Never were the intentions. Lmk if you want to work in the future. My apologies.”

The deposition last week was taken on behalf of the therapist, Ashley Solis, the first of 22 women who have sued Watson and accused him of similar sexual misconduct during massage sessions from early 2020 to March 2021. The encounter with Solis came on March 30, 2020, in her home in the Houston area.

“But you know why you sent that text apology afterwards?” Buzbee asked Watson during the deposition last week, according to a partial transcript obtained by USA TODAY Sports.

Of course not, I don't expect Mayfield to take another snap for the Cleveland Browns no matter the situation. That bed has been made and both parties have to deal with it.

I wonder if Pit will ask you who are these people? He sure made a big deal about me saying something while ignoring 888's claim about the NFL's about posters giving Watson the benefit of the doubt in regards to his innocence. For the record, I don't think 888 meant any harm and I don't want Pit to get on either of your cases, but it shows how fake the dude is.

Thanks for answering, steve.

I know Ashley Solisa was the first to come forward, but do we know where she falls on the actual timeline?

I think the "timeline" may come into play pretty heavily in the court of public opinion and the NFL.

If we reach a point where someone can ask... "Deshaun, at this point we have two girls who cried, two who told you to get dressed and GTHO, one who threatened to call the police... and you thought it was a good idea to continue this behavior for another six months??"... this may get ugly on a few different fronts.

Just my .02 worth. I want to see my beloved Browns win in the worse way. I'll be 65 this year and I hope I get to see a Super Bowl victory before I pass on. I hope things work out well with DW and we can achieve that SB victory. However, being a Browns fan since I was 10 I've come to the realization that if something can go wrong here it will. Time will tell and I hope I'm wrong but we'll just have to wait and see.

No, I wasn't agreeing w/you. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of Pit and perhaps a few others. But, since you brought it up...........who are the posters that are insinuating that the massage therapists are lying? I have seen words like "predator," "rapist," "deviant," and "creepy" thrown around, but I haven't really seen people claiming that the women are lying.

Personally speaking, I don't feel the need to convict anyone in the court of public opinion. I allow the courts to sort things out and I don't rant about anyone's presumed guilt. As I explained to 888, I did not say that Friel was guilty of the crimes she is accused of. I did not ask for her to be removed from the proceedings due to her past record. I won't say whether she is guilty or innocent of the alleged crimes. I did say that there was no doubt that she locked out the lead investigator who had proof in the Elliot case because that is not up for debate. She did lock her out. That does not mean that Friel should be punished. Likewise, I will not say that Watson is innocent or guilty. I don't think I am omnipotent and can assign guilt to a person when I don't have all the facts. I don't think I should play judge, jury, and executioner. I let the laws of our land make those determinations because I am an American and mostly proud of our great land. So while guys like you, Pit, steve, Lex, etc can declare that someone is guilty of a crime while not having ALL the facts.........>I will not be following your lead. And I will be damned if you think you can get me to stand down on the laws of the land where a man is innocent until proven guilty.

I agree in principle, but the way these cases are disposed of leaves too much room for doubt IMO. If these are settled and no new facts are revealed or released proving him innocent (or at least not a total rapey scumbag), I can't root for him. That becomes a major issue for me personally. I don't know about you. We all know allegations can falsely ruin a man's career, and I don't want to do that by assuming his guilt or culpability. But I also will not root for a rapey scumbag, no matter who he plays for. No way I would have rooted for Ben, because I know exactly who he WAS coming out of college, rather he still is or not. My daughter went to school there and everybody knew Ben was full of himself and would use his star status on women. He could have easily went to jail over some of the things I heard. But again, I can't be sure how accurate those claims were, even coming from my daughter. She never personally interacted with him.

The women in this case did, and I would like to hear them on the stand. Not some article where they can easily cover their bases on being fact checked, but on stand under the pressure of legal testimony. If the accusations stand up after that, smh, what should we think? If not, it makes it easier to have him here by leaps and bounds. I couldn't care less about a Super Bowl right now, and can't believe I'm in a position to even feel that way. Hell, I've wanted that for the Browns since I was a kid. How do you turn that off? Like this I reckon, bring in a star QB with all these rapey allegations, while crapping on the guy you said would start and just extended. This whole situation is mind blowing to me from a business and moral sense. Just as a fan, anything to win sounded good until now. But suddenly a larger than you think portion of the fanbase NEEDS these answers, or it's going to be very hard going forward. And I don't think winning will cure this, personally.

Three comments and one question.

--I would not dream of holding it against you if you didn't root for the Browns. It's a freaking game that is for entertainment purposes. People put too much stock into what team others root for.

--We did not extend Baker. That is why I thought there was a good chance he would not be back after this past year.

--Oh, I think a large portion of the fanbase are demanding answers. I think a large percentage of them are Baker fans who are bitter about the latter's demise here in Cleveland. I think those folks will be highly critical of Watson and the team even if Watson is allowed to play. I think that they will bring constant venom. I have already read crap about "no excuses," and "Super Bowl or anything else is a failure," etc, etc.

--The question............>I probably have not followed the legal proceedings as closely as others. You keep saying "rapey scumbag." I haven't heard of allegations of rape. Did I miss that or is that just a conclusion that some are drawing because their minds are already made up?